Last week, I looked at the first four nominees for Best Picture. And now, the adventure continues!

“Midnight in Paris” Woody Allen’s comedy is a bit of a contradiction — it’s a movie clearly in love with a city and an era, but oddly enough, it’s also a cautionary tale about idealizing things. The story, about a screenwriter (Owen Wilson) who finds himself going back in time to meet some of the classic artists from Paris’ past, is a great idea that’s a little muddled in the execution.

Take away the beautiful surroundings and fun cameos, and we have another tale of a misunderstood guy who struggles against a world and a fiancée who doesn’t understand him. Wilson — playing the Woody Allen role — is so detached he almost seems to not even be there, and the movie suffers from some annoying and distracting subplots. The end result is a film with loads of potential that ends up not being all it could be. (Now available on DVD.)

“War Horse” So often, critics of Steven Spielberg like to derisively use the word “Spielbergian” when criticizing his work, indicating their disdain for what they see as clichéd elements of his films. This is usually a narrow-minded and unfair dismissal, but I must admit that after viewing “War Horse,” “Spielbergian” was the first word that came to mind.

The film plays like a travelogue of World War I, told through the eyes of a horse and the boy who loves him. But it doesn’t offer any real insight into the war that’s going on, and the tale of the horse itself doesn’t generate a lot of sympathy. Unlike “Saving Private Ryan,” which truly seemed to capture the essence of the conflict it was depicting, this film ends up feeling like an extended “Lassie” episode, only with Mr. Ed playing the dog. (Now playing at Fallen Timbers 14.)

“The Artist” Please, please dismiss from your mind any preconceived notions of what an “art film” is. Forget that it’s in black and white, and silent. Just think of “The Artist,” first and foremost, as a movie, and you’ll find that it’s one of the most purely entertaining works to play in theaters in a long, long time.

Michel Hazanavicius’ movie is about the golden age of Hollywood, and that treacherous time when silent movies were giving way to sound. It is a film that is in tribute to that age gone by, but also inspired by it. The story is told in grand, broad strokes, just like the silent movies it’s emulating, but also is subtle and emotional enough to have true power. The result is a delight, for any audience. (Now playing at Levis Commons 12.)

“Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” Thomas Horn, who plays the young hero Oskar in “Extremely Loud,” is a very, very fine actor. He must be. It takes considerable talent to create a hero this unlikable. This is a child who lost his father (Tom Hanks, no less) on Sept. 11, 2001. He should be able to generate all the sympathy in the world. And still, through sheer will, the movie made me hate him with white-hot intensity. An impressive achievement.

Little Oskar is trying to find the lock that will open with a key he finds in his late dad’s closet, which takes him on a quest he hopes will bring him closer to his father’s memory. The result is a wildly unlikely fable where this pint-sized genius walks all around the city. (Now playing at Fallen Timbers 14 and Franklin Park 16.)

“Moneyball” Baseball is a game devoted to statistics, and yet it took years for someone to use those numbers the way Billy Beane did. That’s the idea at the heart of Bennett Miller’s sports movie, a film about the 2002 Oakland A’s, which after being gutted the year before, rebuilt  with a mish-mash of cheap players other teams didn’t want, and ended up changing the way the game is played.

The script, by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin, is written with an economy of smart, interesting dialogue that sounds and feels authentic. None of the performances is over-the-top or showy, but they all are set toward the goal of telling an interesting story in an interesting way. It’s not the equal of Sorkin’s brilliantly written “The Social Network,” but it’s a fine, fine movie. (Now available on DVD.)

Email Toledo Free Press Star Pop Culture Editor Jeff McGinnis at PopGoesJeff@gmail.com.

Tags: "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close", 2001, Aaron Sorkin, Academy Awards, Bennett Miller, Billy Beane, Jeff McGinnis, Michel Hazanavicius, midnight in paris, Moneyball, Mr. Ed, Oakland A's, Oscars, Owen Wilson, Paris, Pop Goes the Culture, Saving Private Ryan, Sept. 11, Steven Spielberg, Steven Zaillian, The Artist, The Social Network, Thomas Horn, Tom Hanks, War Horse, Woody Allen

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 14th, 2012 at 11:29 am and is filed under Film, Star.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

On Jan. 20, a touching drama starring Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock opened wide in theaters across the country. Telling the story of a boy trying to piece together his life after his father is killed on 9/11, the movie’s intriguing story led to it grossing over $11 million dollars in its opening weekend. Its name, of course, is…

Uh…”Incredibly Loud and Close?” “Extremely Close and Loud?” “Extremely Loud and Crazy?” “Up Close and Personal?”

Moviegoers can be forgiven for finding the exact title hard to remember. (For the record, it’s “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.” Just keep repeating it to yourself and you’ll get it eventually.) It’s not exactly the kind of name that sticks in the mind right away. Also sharing the bill in many theaters is the equally baffling “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.” Sure, that one’s a remake of a classic novel, but for modern audiences who haven’t heard of the original work, how easily are those words remembered? (Actual request overheard in a local theater: “Tinker Toy Super Boy.” Noble effort, sir.)

The goal of a title seems to be straightforward: Make the film/show/album/etc. easily identifiable and distinguishable. There’s a level of complexity and obscurity in naming a product that would seem, superficially, to undermine this effort. Yet history is littered with examples of what would seem to be lousy titles that turned out to be great successes.

There’s an old Hollywood saying that a great title is one that’s attached to a hit. Here are just a few examples.

“The Shawshank Redemption.” Whoa whoa whoa. What the hell is a Shawshank and why does it need to be redeemed from anything? What about that name gives its viewers any idea whatsoever that it’s a prison drama? What an obscure name for such a gritty enterprise. Of course, it could have been worse — the original Stephen King story’s full title is “Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption.” Then you’d have a mass of kids asking who the heck Rita Hayworth is.

The ungainly title was indeed a cause for concern — several new names were proposed while the film was in production. And, indeed, the name did seem to be a hindrance during the film’s first theatrical run, where it was largely ignored. But then, as word of mouth spread, the movie began to gain a huge audience in second-run theaters and on home video, and eventually, became one of the most beloved films in the past 20 years — and that same awkward title became unforgettable.

“Ratatouille.” Okay, first things first — how the heck do you even pronounce that, let alone know what it is? To an American audience, it looks like someone just threw up Alphabet soup on the screen, leaving a hodge podge of random letters in their wake. Then, you learn it’s a French word referring to a traditional stewed dish, and it still seems utterly nonsensical. And THIS is the latest film from animation giant Pixar? Those guys must be insane. Do they really think they can name their movies ANYTHING and have them be a hit?

Actually, they probably do — and they’re right. Of course, Pixar did take caution with the unique moniker, as the film’s first trailer not only established its concept and characters, but included a full set of pronunciation symbols for the title. By the time the movie debuted a year later, most everyone had been thoroughly educated in the proper way to say the name, and the fact that most of the main characters were rats helped set it in the memory. Add in its wonderful and inventive story, and the film became yet another huge hit for Pixar, earning them their first of four straight Best Animated Film Oscars.

“Quantum of Solace.” That isn’t a title, it’s an “Increase Your Word Power” game. James Bond movies have always been a little obtuse, but usually maintain at least some air of sophistication and badass-ness (often by including some variation of the word “Die” somewhere). This seems to be all sophistication and no badass whatsoever. That’s the kind of name a little drama that plays on 200 screens would have, not a huge budget action extravaganza. The fact that the name does come from an Ian Fleming Bond story — though one that has no relation to this plot — offered little comfort.

Of course, it WAS still James Bond, and that’s pretty much enough. After the enormous success of Daniel Craig’s first outing as the famous secret agent in “Casino Royale,” the anticipation for his follow-up adventure was through the roof, and even an ungainly and awkward title wasn’t gonna stop it. If anything, it added to the anticipation, as fans were left with little to go on from the title’s sparse clues. The movie went on to become the second-highest grossing Bond film ever. Craig will soon return to the screen with his third outing as 007 — the more apocalyptic-sounding “Skyfall.”

Coming soon, the flip side: A look at great movie titles that flopped!

Jeff McGinnis is Toledo Free Press Star Pop Culture Editor. Email him at PopGoesJeff@gmail.com. Listen for his pop culture reports at 9 a.m. Tuesdays on “The Morning Rush” on 92.5 KISS-FM.

Tags: "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close", "Quantum of Solace", "Ratatouille", "The Shawshank Redemption", James Bond, Jeff McGinnis, movie titles, Pixar, Pop Goes the Culture

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 4:17 pm and is filed under Pop Goes the Culture, Star.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.